Controlling Modification of Components in a Content Management System

ABSTRACT

A content management system (CMS) includes a content modification mechanism that checks a modification contract corresponding to a component in the repository, and determines if all relevant criteria in the modification contract corresponding to the component are satisfied before making changes to or allowing reuse of a component in the repository. The modification contract may specify a profile of authors that are allowed to modify the corresponding component. The content management system includes an author profile update mechanism that monitors modifications by authors to components in the repository, and automatically adjusts a profile of each author according to modifications made by the author. In this manner the rank of authors is automatically adjusted and the modification of components is controlled in a way that allows modification by those who are authorized yet restricts modification by those who are not authorized.

BACKGROUND

1. Technical Field

This disclosure generally relates to content management systems, andmore specifically relates to modification of components in a contentmanagement system.

2. Background Art

Content management systems (CMSs) have been developed and allow manyusers to efficiently share electronic content such as text, audio files,video files, pictures, graphics, etc. Content management systemstypically control access to content in a repository. An author (or user)may generate content, and when the content is checked into therepository, the content is available for reuse by other users. A usermay also check out content from the repository, or link to content inthe repository while generating content.

When a content management system is used in a controlled environment, itis desirable to control who can make changes to content. Known contentmanagement systems control access to content according to the role ofthe user who wishes to modify content. For example, a user who initiallycreated content may be allowed to modify the content, or users withsupervisor privileges may also be allowed to modify the content of otherusers. However, known content management systems do not dynamicallyadjust to allow or disallow modifications by users according to a user'spast history in modifying content. Without a way for a contentmanagement system to dynamically adjust as users of a content managementsystem gain experience, the current methods used to control access tocontent will provide a rigid and inflexible solution that requires asignificant amount of administrator work to adjust privileges of authorsas their experience in modifying content grows.

BRIEF SUMMARY

A content management system (CMS) includes a content modificationmechanism that checks a modification contract corresponding to acomponent in the repository, and determines if one or more criteria inthe modification contract are satisfied before making changes to thecomponent. The content modification mechanism may include an authorfeedback mechanism, an author profile update mechanism, and a similaritypolicy. The author feedback mechanism provides messages to an authorwhen the author attempts to modify a component in the repository. Theauthor profile update mechanism allows automatically updating an authorprofile to reflect experience of the author, role of the author, andrank of the author, which may be dynamically updated based on theauthor's history in changing content in the past. The similarity policymay be defined that defines how similar a change must be to changes inprevious versions of a component for the change to be allowed. Thecontent modification mechanism determines if all relevant criteria in amodification contract for a component have been satisfied beforeallowing modification of the component. In this way the modification ofcomponents is controlled in a way that allows modification of componentsby those who are authorized yet restricts modifications by those who arenot authorized.

The foregoing and other features and advantages will be apparent fromthe following more particular description, as illustrated in theaccompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)

The disclosure will be described in conjunction with the appendeddrawings, where like designations denote like elements, and:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a networked computer system that includes aserver computer system that has a content management system thatincludes a content modification mechanism that controls modification ofcomponents in a repository;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing details of the content repository 150in FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing sample author criteria that could beused for an author;

FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing sample modification criteria thatcould be specified in a modification contract;

FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of a method for checking changes made by anauthor to a component in the repository before making the changes;

FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of one specific implementation for step 530 inFIG. 5;

FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of a method for automatically adjusting a rankof an author when the author makes invalid modifications to content inthe repository; and

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of a sample document that includes links tofour components with corresponding modification contracts for eachcomponent for illustrating the concepts disclosed herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A content modification mechanism in a content management system controlswho can modify content in the repository by specifying one or moremodification contracts that correspond to one or more correspondingcomponents in the repository of the content management system. When anauthor attempts to modify a component, the modification contractcorresponding to the component is checked, and the author is allowed tomodify the component only if one or more criteria specified in themodification contract are satisfied. An author profile corresponding tothe author is dynamically adjusted over time according to the author'shistory and experience in correctly modifying content. In this manner,the content management system may effectively control modification ofcomponents in its repository in a dynamic way that accounts forexperience of the author desiring to make a modification.

Referring to FIG. 1, networked computer system 100 includes multipleclients, shown in FIG. 1 as clients 110A, . . . , 110N, coupled to anetwork 130. Each client preferably includes a CPU, storage, and memorythat contains a document editor and a content management system (CMS)plugin. Thus, client 110A includes a CPU 112A, storage 114A, memory120A, a document editor 122A in the memory 120A that is executed by theCPU 112A, and a CMS plugin 124A that allows the document editor 122A tointeract with content 152 in the repository 150 that is managed by theCMS 170 in server 140. In similar fashion, other clients have similarcomponents shown in client 110A, through client 110N, which includes aCPU 112N, storage 114N, memory 120N, a document editor 122N, and a CMSplugin 124N.

The CMS 170 resides in the main memory 160 of a server computer system140 that also includes a CPU 142. Computer system 140 also includesstorage 144 that includes a content repository 150 that holds content152 managed by the CMS 170. One example of a suitable server computersystem 140 is an IBM eServer System i computer system. However, thoseskilled in the art will appreciate that the disclosure herein appliesequally to any type of client or server computer systems, regardless ofwhether each computer system is a complicated multi-user computingapparatus, a single user workstation, or an embedded control system. CMS170 includes a content modification mechanism 172 that controls themodification of components in the content repository 150. Contentmodification mechanism 172 includes an author feedback mechanism 174, anauthor profile update mechanism 176, and a similarity policy 178. Theauthor feedback mechanism 174 provides messages to an author. The authorprofile update mechanism 176 can automatically update an author profileto indicate the author's experience, role, and current rank, and maydecrease the rank if the author makes mistakes in modifying content inthe repository and may increase the rank as the author gains moreexperience or as the author avoids making mistakes in modifying contentin the repository. The similarity policy 178 specifies one or moresimilarity criteria that determine whether a proposed change to acomponent is “similar” to former changes to other versions of thecomponent or to similar components.

In FIG. 1, repository 150 is shown separate from content managementsystem 170. In the alternative, repository 150 could be within thecontent management system 170. Regardless of the location of therepository 150, the content management system 170 controls access to andmanages content 152 in the repository 150.

Server computer system 140 may include other features of computersystems that are not shown in FIG. 1 but are well-known in the art. Forexample, server computer system 140 preferably includes a displayinterface, a network interface, and a mass storage interface to anexternal direct access storage device (DASD) 190. The display interfaceis used to directly connect one or more displays to server computersystem 140. These displays, which may be non-intelligent (i.e., dumb)terminals or fully programmable workstations, are used to provide systemadministrators and users the ability to communicate with server computersystem 140. Note, however, that while a display interface is provided tosupport communication with one or more displays, server computer system140 does not necessarily require a display, because all neededinteraction with users and other processes may occur via the networkinterface.

The network interface is used to connect the server computer system 140to multiple other computer systems (e.g., 110A, . . . , 110N) via anetwork, such as network 130. The network interface and network 130broadly represent any suitable way to interconnect electronic devices,regardless of whether the network 130 comprises present-day analogand/or digital techniques or via some networking mechanism of thefuture. In addition, many different network protocols can be used toimplement a network. These protocols are specialized computer programsthat allow computers to communicate across a network. TCP/IP(Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is an example of asuitable network protocol.

The mass storage interface is used to connect mass storage devices, suchas a direct access storage device 190, to server computer system 140.One specific type of direct access storage device 190 is a readable andwritable CD-RW drive, which may store data to and read data from a CD-RW195.

Main memory 160 preferably contains data and an operating system thatare not shown in FIG. 1. A suitable operating system is a multitaskingoperating system known in the industry as i5/OS; however, those skilledin the art will appreciate that the spirit and scope of this disclosureis not limited to any one operating system. In addition, server computersystem 140 utilizes well known virtual addressing mechanisms that allowthe programs of server computer system 140 to behave as if they onlyhave access to a large, single storage entity instead of access tomultiple, smaller storage entities such as storage 144, main memory 160,and DASD device 190. Therefore, while data, the operating system, andcontent management system 170 may reside in main memory 160, thoseskilled in the art will recognize that these items are not necessarilyall completely contained in main memory 160 at the same time. It shouldalso be noted that the term “memory” is used herein generically to referto the entire virtual memory of server computer system 140, and mayinclude the virtual memory of other computer systems coupled to computersystem 140.

CPU 142 may be constructed from one or more microprocessors and/orintegrated circuits. CPU 142 executes program instructions stored inmain memory 160. Main memory 160 stores programs and data that CPU 142may access. When computer system 140 starts up, CPU 142 initiallyexecutes the program instructions that make up the operating system.

Although server computer system 140 is shown to contain only a singleCPU, those skilled in the art will appreciate that a content managementsystem 170 may be practiced using a computer system that has multipleCPUs. In addition, the interfaces that are included in server computersystem 140 (e.g., display interface, network interface, and DASDinterface) preferably each include separate, fully programmedmicroprocessors that are used to off-load compute-intensive processingfrom CPU 142. However, those skilled in the art will appreciate thatthese functions may be performed using I/O adapters as well.

At this point, it is important to note that while the description aboveis in the context of a fully functional computer system, those skilledin the art will appreciate that the content management system 170 may bedistributed as an article of manufacture in a variety of forms, and theclaims extend to all suitable types of computer-readable media used toactually carry out the distribution, including recordable media such asfloppy disks and CD-RW (e.g., 195 of FIG. 1).

The content management system may also be delivered as part of a serviceengagement with a client corporation, nonprofit organization, governmententity, internal organizational structure, or the like. This may includeconfiguring a computer system to perform some or all of the methodsdescribed herein, and deploying software, hardware, and web servicesthat implement some or all of the methods described herein. This mayalso include analyzing the client's operations, creating recommendationsresponsive to the analysis, building systems that implement portions ofthe recommendations, integrating the systems into existing processes andinfrastructure, metering use of the systems, allocating expenses tousers of the systems, and billing for use of the systems.

Referring to FIG. 2, the content repository 150 in FIG. 1 is shown toinclude numerous items, including author profiles 210, an author rankingpolicy 220, a plurality of components 230, and documents 260Y and 260Z.Author profiles 210 include multiple profiles that each specifies authorcriteria. Thus, author 1 profile 212A has corresponding author criteria214A, and possibly other author profiles through author profile N 212Nwith its corresponding criteria 214N. One suitable example for authorcriteria that may be specified in an author profile is shown at 214A inFIG. 3. The author criteria may include the role(s) of the author, theexperience of the author, and the current rank of the author. The roleof the author is preferably defined with respect to the author's role inthe content management system. Thus, one user might be an author that isallowed to create new content, while another user may have a supervisorrole that allows him or her to not only create new content, but tomodify the content of others as well, as long as specified criteria forthe change are satisfied. While the author criteria in FIG. 3 are shownas separate and discrete items, one skilled in the art will recognizethat a suitable heuristic could use multiple criteria. For example, thecurrent rank could be increased or decreased based on the role andexperience of the author. The disclosure and claims herein expresslyextend to any suitable author criteria in an author profile.

The author ranking policy 220 may include any suitable specification orheuristic for determining and adjusting author criteria in an authorprofile, such as author rank. For the sake of illustration, the authorranking policy 220 in FIG. 2 specifies no deduction from the author'srank if a modification that includes a minor error is made, specifies afive point deduction from the author's rank if a modification thatincludes a moderate error is made, and specifies a ten point deductionfrom the author's rank if a modification that includes a major error ismade. The author ranking policy 220 thus provides the criteria for theauthor profile update mechanism 176 in FIG. 1 to dynamically monitormodifications to content made by authors and automatically adjust therank of the author according to those modifications. Note the authorranking policy could include other criteria not shown in FIG. 2. Forexample, the rank of an author could be automatically increased if noerrors were made or if only minor errors were made for a predeterminedperiod of time. In this manner the author profile update mechanism 176can adjust the rank of an author up and down according to the trustlevel of the author as indicated by the author profile. This dynamicadjustment of author profile allows greater flexibility in monitoringand making modifications to content in the repository.

Components 230 in FIG. 2 are shown to include a component portion 240, amodification contract 242, and a version tree 244. The component portion240 includes the component itself. The modification contract 242specifies one or more modification criteria 410 as shown in FIG. 4. Themodification criteria 410 may include any suitable criteria, includingthe rank of who is allowed to update, the version information, and asimilarity measure. The rank of who can update specifies a required rankfor performing an update. The version information specifies the currentversion of the component. The similarity measure specifies how close achange must be to previous changes to the component itself, to previousversions of the component, or to similar components. Specific examplesof modification criteria will be discussed in more detail below withreference to FIG. 8. The version tree 244 shows all previous versions ofthe component, and may also indicate related components as well.

Components 230 in FIG. 2 are shown to include a first entry 250A, asecond entry 250B, . . . , to an Nth entry 250N. Also shown in FIG. 2are extensible markup language (XML) documents 260Y and 260Z. Note thatdocuments 260Y and 260Z are also components that are stored in therepository, but are compound components because they include links toother components in the repository. Thus, document 260Y includes a linkto Component B, a link to Component A, and a link to Component N.Document 260Z includes a link to Component A and a link to Component P.

Referring to FIG. 5, a method 500 shows suitable high-level functions ofthe content modification mechanism 172 in FIG. 1. First an authormodifies content (step 510). This may be done, for example, by checkinga component out of the repository and modifying the component in aneditor. The author initiates check-in of the modified component to therepository (step 520). If the modifications satisfy the modificationcontract for the modified component (step 530=YES), the modifiedcomponent is checked into the repository (step 540). If themodifications do not satisfy the modification contract (step 530=NO),the modified component is not checked into the repository (step 550) andan error message is sent to the author (step 560) indicating therequested modification was not made. Note the error message in step 560is preferably sent using the author feedback mechanism 174 in FIG. 1. Atthis point, method 500 is done.

Referring to FIG. 6, a method 530 is one suitable implementation forstep 530 in FIG. 5. If the author is acceptable (step 610=YES), and theversion information is satisfied (step 620=YES), and the similaritymeasure is satisfied (step 630=YES), the modifications by the authorsatisfy the modification contract (step 640). If the author is notacceptable (step 610=NO), or if the version information is not satisfied(step 620=NO), or if the similarity measure is not satisfied (step630=NO), the modifications by the author do not satisfy the modificationcontract (step 650). Note a modification contract may not include allthree criteria represented by steps 610, 620 and 630 in FIG. 6. If oneor more of these criteria are not specified in the modificationcontract, we assume for the purposes of FIG. 6 that these criteria aresatisfied.

Referring to FIG. 7, a method 700 represents a sample method that couldbe performed by the author profile update mechanism 176 in FIG. 1 toimplement the author ranking policy 220 in FIG. 2. First, an authormodifies a component (step 710). The author initiates check-in of themodified component to the repository (step 720). If the modificationsare valid (step 730=YES), there is no change to the author rank (step740). If the modifications are not valid (step 730=NO), but the severityof the error is minor (step 750=YES), no change is made to the authorrank (step 740). If the modifications are invalid (step 730=NO), and theseverity is not minor (step 750=NO) and the severity is moderate (step760=YES), five points are deducted from the author rank (step 770). Ifthe severity is not moderate (step 760=NO), this means the severity ishigh, so ten points are deducted from the author rank (step 780). Whilemethod 700 does not show a way to increase the rank of an author, theauthor profile update mechanism 176 can also increase the rank of anauthor using any suitable criteria or heuristic. For example, if theauthor has no errors or only minor errors for a predetermined period oftime, the author's rank could be increased. If a supervisor provides afavorable evaluation of an author, the author's rank may be increased.The disclosure and claims herein expressly extend to any suitablecriteria or heuristic for adjusting the rank of an author. In addition,while criteria are not defined herein for determining whether theseverity of an invalid change is minor, moderate or high, one skilled inthe art will recognize there are numerous ways to define the severity ofan invalid change, and the disclosure herein expressly extends to allsuitable ways to define severity of an invalid change, whether currentlyknown or developed in the future.

Referring to FIG. 8, an example is now shown to illustrate many of theconcepts discussed herein. A compound document 810 is shown to includelinks to four different components A, B, C and D. The modificationcontracts for each of these components are shown in separate boxesconnected to the component links with a line. Thus, the link tocomponent A is shown with a line to the modification contract 242A forcomponent A. In similar fashion, each link to components B, C and D indocument 810 has a line pointing to the corresponding modificationcontracts 242B, 242C and 242D, respectively, for each of the components.

Modification contract 242A indicates component A can never be updated.For example, a component that has been used in a released product may belocked by the modification criteria (as in 242A in FIG. 8) to assure thecomponent never changes. Modification contract 242B indicates componentB can be modified by any author. Modification contract 242C indicatescomponent C can be modified if the proposed change is similar toprevious versions, or if the author rank is over 80. Modificationcontract 242C additionally indicates to auto-suggest if the change issignificantly different than previous versions. Auto-suggest is a knownmethod in content management systems for prompting an author withrecommended values when modifying a component. Modification contract242D specifies component D can be modified by authors with a rank over80.

With the example shown in FIG. 8, we assume an author ranking policy asshown at 220 in FIG. 2, and an author profile for a selected authorspecifies a rank of 80 for that author. We then assume the selectedauthor attempts to make an invalid change to the document 810 shown inFIG. 8, and the mistake is a moderate one. As a result, the authorprofile update mechanism deducts five points from the author's rank,resulting in a rank of 75 for the author (see method 700 in FIG. 7). Wenext assume the author attempts to modify component D. However, themodification contract 242D corresponding to component D specifies thiscomponent can be modified only by authors with a rank over 80. Becausethe selected author's current rank is 75, the author's rank does notsatisfy the modification contract. As a result, the requested change tocomponent D is not made, and a message is sent to the author indicatingthe requested change was not made.

Now we assume the selected author attempts to modify component C. Themodification contract 242C indicates component C can be modified if thechange is similar to previous versions, or the author rank is over 80.The author's current rank is 75, which is not sufficient by itself.However, we assume for this example the author's proposed changes aresimilar to changes to the previous versions of the component, so theauthor's proposed changes are allowed. This means the proposed changesatisfies both the similarity measure specified in the modificationcontract (e.g., 242 in FIG. 4) and the similarity policy 178 shown inFIG. 1.

We assume the author then attempts to modify component C with changesthat are significantly different than changes to previous versions ofthe component. In this case, the change is not similar to the previousversions, and the author rank is 75, which is less than the 80 required.As a result, the modification is not allowed, but a proposed change isauto-suggested to the author by sending the author a message indicatingchanges that would be similar enough to previous versions of thecomponent to be acceptable according to the modification contract 242C.The author can examine the changes that were auto-suggested, thendetermine whether or not to make one or more of the recommended changes.

The simple example in FIG. 8 is presented to illustrate several of theconcepts discussed and claimed herein, but it is very simplified for thepurpose of illustration. One skilled in the art will recognize that manydifferent criteria could be specified in a modification contract for acomponent, other criteria could be specified in the author profiles, andother suitable changes could be made within the scope of the disclosureand claims herein.

The content management system disclosed and claimed herein allowscontrolling modification of content in a content management system usinga modification contract corresponding to a component to be changed andusing a specified profile of the author. The author profile isdynamically adjusted according to changes the author makes and/orattempts to make to content in the repository. When an author's proposedchanges satisfy a modification contract corresponding to the componentto be changed, the change is allowed. Otherwise, the change is notallowed and a message is sent to the author indicating the change wasnot allowed.

One skilled in the art will appreciate that many variations are possiblewithin the scope of the claims. Thus, while the disclosure isparticularly shown and described above, it will be understood by thoseskilled in the art that these and other changes in form and details maybe made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of theclaims. For example, the disclosure and claims herein expressly extendto content management systems that handle any suitable type of content,whether currently known or developed in the future.

1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled tothe at least one processor; a repository residing in the memory thatincludes: a plurality of components; a plurality of modificationcontracts corresponding to the plurality of components, eachmodification contract specifying at least one modification criterionthat determines whether a corresponding component may be modified,wherein the at least one modification criterion includes a specificationof a profile of authors who are allowed to modify the correspondingcomponent; and a plurality of author profiles that each include rank ofan author; a content management system residing in the memory andexecuted by the at least one processor, the content management systemmanaging the plurality of components in the repository, the contentmanagement system comprising: an author profile update mechanism thatautomatically modifies at least one author profile as authors makemodifications to the plurality of components in the repository; and acontent modification mechanism that examines a proposed modification bya selected author to one of the plurality of components that includes amodification contract and determines from the modification contract andfrom a corresponding author profile whether the at least onemodification criterion in the modification contract allows the selectedauthor to modify the one component before allowing the selected authorto modify the one component.
 2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the atleast one modification criterion includes version information for theone component that is compared to version information stored in therepository corresponding to the one component.
 3. The apparatus of claim1 wherein the at least one modification criterion includes a similaritymeasure for modifying the one component that specifies how similar aproposed modification must be according to past modifications.
 4. Theapparatus of claim 1 wherein the author profile update mechanismautomatically increases rank of an author in a corresponding authorprofile when the author makes at least one valid modification to atleast one of the plurality of components in the repository.
 5. Theapparatus of claim 1 wherein the author profile update mechanismautomatically increases rank of an author in a corresponding authorprofile when the author makes no invalid modifications or only minorinvalid modifications to at least one of the plurality of components inthe repository for a predetermined time period.
 6. The apparatus ofclaim 1 wherein the author profile update mechanism automaticallydecreases rank of an author in a corresponding author profile when theauthor makes at least one invalid modification to at least one of theplurality of components in the repository.
 7. A computer-implementedmethod for a content management system that manages a plurality ofcomponents in a repository to control modifications to the plurality ofcomponents, the method comprising the steps of: (A) an author requestingto modify a component in the repository that has a correspondingmodification contract specifying at least one modification criterionthat determines whether the component may be modified, wherein the atleast one modification criterion includes a specification of profile ofauthors who are allowed to modify the component; (B) reading an authorprofile corresponding to the author that is stored in the repository;(C) determining from the modification contract and from the authorprofile whether the at least one modification criterion in themodification contract allows the author to modify the one componentbefore allowing the selected author to modify the one component; and (D)automatically modifying the author profile as the author makesmodifications to the plurality of components in the content managementsystem.
 8. The method of claim 7 wherein the at least one modificationcriterion includes version information for the one component that iscompared to version information stored in the repository correspondingto the one component.
 9. The method of claim 7 wherein the at least onemodification criterion includes a similarity measure for modifying theone component that specifies how similar a proposed modification must beaccording to past modifications.
 10. The method of claim 7 wherein step(D) automatically increases rank of an author in a corresponding authorprofile when the author makes at least one valid modification to atleast one of the plurality of components in the repository.
 11. Themethod of claim 7 wherein step (D) automatically increases rank of anauthor in a corresponding author profile when the author makes noinvalid modifications or only minor invalid modifications to at leastone of the plurality of components in the repository for a predeterminedtime period.
 12. The method of claim 7 wherein step (D) automaticallydecreases rank of an author in a corresponding author profile when theauthor makes at least one invalid modification to at least one of theplurality of components in the repository.
 13. A computer-implementedmethod for a content management system that manages a plurality ofcomponents in a repository to control modifications to the plurality ofcomponents, the method comprising the steps of: (A) storing in therepository version information corresponding to at least one of theplurality of components; (B) storing in the repository a plurality ofmodification contracts that each correspond to a component in therepository, each modification contract including: a. a specification ofrank of an author that is required for the author to modify thecorresponding component; b. a version specification that specifies atleast one other version of the corresponding component to examine forchanges; and c. a similarity measure for modifying the correspondingcomponent that specifies how similar a proposed modification must beaccording to past modifications; (C) storing a plurality of authorprofiles in the repository, each author profile specifying a rank for acorresponding author; (D) automatically increasing rank of an author inthe corresponding author profile when the author makes at least onevalid modification to at least one of the plurality of components in therepository; (E) automatically increasing rank of the author in thecorresponding author profile when the author makes no invalidmodifications or only minor invalid modifications to at least one of theplurality of components in the repository for a predetermined timeperiod; (F) automatically decreasing rank of the author in thecorresponding author profile when the author makes at least one invalidmodification to at least one of the plurality of components in therepository; (G) the author requesting to modify a selected component inthe repository; (H) determining from the modification contract and fromthe author profile whether the at least one modification criterion inthe modification contract allows the author to modify the selectedcomponent; (I) if the modification contract and the author profile allowthe author to modify the selected component, making the modificationrequested in step (G); and (J) if the modification contract and theauthor profile do not allow the author to modify the selected component,sending a message to the author indicating the modification was notallowed.
 14. An article of manufacture comprising: (A) a contentmanagement system that manages a plurality of documents in a repository,the content management system comprising: a repository that includes: 1.a plurality of components;
 2. a plurality of modification contractscorresponding to the plurality of components, each modification contractspecifying at least one modification criterion that determines whether acorresponding component may be modified, wherein the at least onemodification criterion includes a specification of rank of authors whoare allowed to modify the corresponding component; and
 3. a plurality ofauthor profiles that each include rank of an author; an author profileupdate mechanism that automatically modifies rank of authors in theplurality of author profiles as the authors make modifications to theplurality of components in the repository; and a content modificationmechanism that examines a proposed modification by a selected author toone of the plurality of components that includes a modification contractand determines from the modification contract and from a correspondingauthor profile whether the at least one modification criterion in themodification contract allows the selected author to modify the onecomponent before allowing the selected author to modify the onecomponent; and (B) computer-readable media bearing the contentmanagement system.
 15. The article of manufacture of claim 14 whereinthe at least one modification criterion includes version information forthe one component that is compared to version information stored in therepository corresponding to the one component.
 16. The article ofmanufacture of claim 14 wherein the at least one modification criterionincludes a similarity measure for modifying the one component thatspecifies how similar a proposed modification must be according to pastmodifications.
 17. The article of manufacture of claim 14 wherein theauthor profile update mechanism automatically increases rank of anauthor in a corresponding author profile when the author makes at leastone valid modification to at least one of the plurality of components inthe repository.
 18. The article of manufacture of claim 14 wherein theauthor profile update mechanism automatically increases rank of anauthor in a corresponding author profile when the author makes noinvalid modifications or only minor invalid modifications to at leastone of the plurality of components in the repository for a predeterminedtime period.
 19. The article of manufacture of claim 14 wherein theauthor profile update mechanism automatically decreases rank of anauthor in a corresponding author profile when the author makes at leastone invalid modification to at least one of the plurality of componentsin the repository.